Sabine
patreon
The Trouble With 5G
🕑 Added 2022-09-03 12:01:01 +0000 UTC[This is a transcript of the video.]
Did you know that there are now more mobile devices in the world than people? Whether you knew this or not, you probably did know that mobile phones work with the next best thing to magic, which is physics. All that data flies through the air in form of electromagnetic radiation. And since video resolution will soon be high enough for you to check whether I’ve plucked my eyebrows, wireless networks constantly have to be upgraded.
The fourth Generation of wireless networks, four G for short, is now being extended to five G, and six G is in planning. But five G interferes with the weather forecast, and six G brings more problems. What’s new about those wireless networks, and what’s the problem with them? That’s what we’ll talk about today.
The first four generations of wireless networks used frequency bands from four hundred Mega Hertz to roughly two GigaHertz. But there are limits to the amount of information you can transfer over a channel with a limited bandwidth. In fact there’s maths for this, it’s called the Shannon-Hartley theorem.
If you want to transfer more information through a channel with a fixed noise-level, you have to increase either the bandwidth or the power. You can’t increase the four G bandwidth, and there are safety limits on the power. The five G generation tries to circumvent the problem by using new bands at higher frequencies, going up to about fifty Giga Hertz.
Those frequencies correspond to wave-lengths in the millimeter range, which is why they’re called millimeter waves. There’s a reason they haven’t been previously used for telecommunication, and it’s not because millimeter waves are also used as good-byes for in-laws. It’s because radiation at the previously used frequencies passes through obstacles largely undisturbed, unless maybe the obstacle is a mountain. But millimeter waves can get blocked by trees or buildings, which isn’t great if you like calling people who aren’t within line of sight. “Could you pass me the salt, please? Thank you so much.”
So the idea of five G is to collect the signals from nearby mobile phones in what’s called a small cell of the network, and pass them on at low power to a bigger antenna that sends them long-distance at higher power. The five G network technology is currently being rolled out in most of the developed world. Cisco estimates that by next year 10 percent of mobile connections will use 5G.
Five G is controversial because it’s the first to use millimeter waves and the health effects have not been well studied. I already talked about this in a previous video but let me be clear that I have no reason to think that five G will have any adverse health effects. To the extent that research exists, it shows that millimeter waves will at high power warm up tissue, and that’s pretty much it.
However, the studies that have been done leave me wanting. Last year, one of the Nature journals published a review on 5G mobile networks and health. They looked at 107 experimental studies that investigated various effects on living tissue including genotoxicity, cell proliferation, gene expression, cell signaling, etc.
The brief summary is that none of those studies found anything of concern. However, this isn’t the interesting part of the paper. The interesting part is that the authors rated the quality of these 107 studies. Only two were rated well-designed, and only one got the maximum quality score. One. Out of 107.
The others all had significant shortcomings, anything from lack of blinding to small sample sizes to poor control of environmental parameters. In fact, the authors’ conclusion is not that five G is safe. Their conclusion is: “Given the low-quality methods of the majority of the experimental studies we infer that a systematic review of different bioeffects is not possible at present.”
Now, as I said, there’s no reason to think that five G is harmful. Indeed, there’s good reason to think it’s not, because millimeter waves have been used in medicine for a long time and for all we know they only enter the upper skin layers.
But I am a little surprised that there aren’t any good studies on the health effects of long-term radiation exposure in this frequency range. The 5G network has been in the planning since 2008. That’s 14 years. That’s longer than it takes NASA to fly to Pluto!
So scientists say there’s nothing to worry. Well, they also said that smoking is good for you and alcohol doesn’t cross the placenta and that copies of you live in parallel universes. As a scientist myself, I can confirm that scientists say a lot when the day is long, and I would much rather see data than just take word for it. Only good thing I have to tell you on the matter is that the World Health Organization is working on their own review about the health risk of five G which is supposed to come out by December.
Ok, while we wait to hear what the WHO says about the idea of irradiating much of the world population with millimeter waves, let’s talk about a known side-effect of five G: It’s a headache for atmospheric scientists, that’s meteorologists but also climate scientists. And yes, that means 5G affects the weather forecast.
You see, among the most important data that goes into weather and climate models is the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere. This is measured from satellites. This movie shows the average amount of water vapor in a column of atmosphere in a given month measured by NASA's Aqua satellite. Accurate measurements of the atmospheric water content are essential for weather forecasts.
You measure the amount of water vapor by measuring electromagnetic radiation that is scattered by the water molecules in the atmosphere. Each molecule emits radiation in particular frequency ranges and that allows you to count how many of those molecules there are. It’s the same method that’s used to detect phosphine in the atmosphere of Venus which we talked about in more detail in this earlier video. The frequency that satellites use to look for water is – you guessed it! – 23.80 Giga Hertz (Table 1, first line).
The issue is now that this water vapor signal is uncomfortably close to one of the 5G bands which covers the range from 24 point 25 to 27 point 5 Giga Hertz. You might say that’s still four hundred Mega Hertz away from the water vapor measurements, and that’s right. But the five G band doesn’t abruptly stop at a particular frequency, it’s more that it tapers out. The emission outside of the assigned band is called leakage. That leakage creates noise. And this noise is the problem.
You see, the weather forecast today sensitively depends on data quality. In recent decades, weather forecast has improved a lot. In this figure you see how much more you can trust the weather forecast today than you could a few decades ago. In 1980, a three-day forecast in the Norther Hemisphere was only correct about 85 percent of the time.
Today it’s correct more than 98 percent of the time. And this isn’t just about deciding whether to bring an umbrella, it’s relevant to warn people of dangerous weather events. A 72-hour hurricane warning today is more accurate than a 24-hour warning was 40 years ago.
The reasons for this improvement have been better computers, better models, but also weather satellites that collect more and better data. And that brings us back to the water vapor signal and the 5G troubles.
The water vapor signal is weak and the strongest contribution usually comes from low altitudes. That’s right, typically the biggest fraction of water vapor in the atmosphere isn’t in the clouds but close to the ground. If you took all the water in the atmosphere and put it on the ground you’d get about 2.5 cm. The clouds alone merely make a tenth of a millimeter.
Those are average values and the details depend on the weather situation, but in any case it means that the water vapor signal is very sensitive to noise near the ground. It’s like trying to hear a whisper in a noisy room. To make matters worse, most of the 5G noise will come from densely populated areas so we’ll get the least accurate forecast where people actually live.
Meteorologists are not happy. This is partly because they had to put away the crystal balls. But the bigger reason is that in 2019, The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Organization in the United States, NOAA for short, did an internal study on the impacts of 5G. In a federal hearing, Neil Jacobs, a former NOAA Administrator, said that the current 5G regulations “would degrade the forecast skill by up to 30 percent, so, if you look back in time to see when our forecast skill was roughly 30 percent less than it was today, it’s somewhere around 1980. This would result in the reduction of hurricane track forecast lead time by roughly 2 to 3 days”
The Secretary-General of the World Meteorological Organization, Petteri Taalas, is also concerned. He said: “Potential effects of this could be felt across multiple impact areas including aviation, shipping, agricultural meteorology and warning of extreme events as well as our common ability to monitor climate change in the future.” His organization calls for strict limits on the 5G leakage.
But well, as they say, there are two sides to every story. On the other side is for example
Brad Gillen, executive vice president of the CTIA, that’s a trade association which represents the wireless communications industry in the United States.
He wrote a blogpost for the CTIA website claiming that the effect of five G on the weather forecast is “an absurd claim with no science behind it” He says the study done by NOAA used an obsolete sensor that it’s not in operation. Then he pulls the China card “The Trump Administration has already made its call, and it is time we all get on the same page as China and our other rivals most certainly are today.”
That wasn’t the end of the story. The atmospheric scientist Jordan Gerthan from the University of Wisconsin at Madison, pointed out that the reason the NOAA study mentioned a sensor that isn’t being used on satellites today is that this particular design was cancelled. It was, however, replaced by a very similar one so the argument is a red herring.
In response, a different CTIA guy wrote another blogpost claiming that “5G traffic will be hundreds of megahertz away from the band used in weather data collection”, so he completely ignores the leakage problem and hope his readers don’t know any better. On the other hand, NOAA didn’t publish their study and that didn’t win them any favors either.
However, in 2020, researchers from Rutgers University did their own study. They modeled the leakage of five G into the water vapor signal and evaluated its impact on a weather forecast by using old data. They did a mock 12 hour forecast, one without 5G and then two with different levels of leakage power.
As you can see in these figures, they found that the 5G leakage can affect the forecast up to zero point nine millimeter in precipitation and 1 point three degrees Celsius in temperature at two meters altitude. And it’s not just the value that changes but also the location. That’s a significant difference which would indeed degrade weather forecast accuracy noticeably. Maybe not as dramatic as the NOAA guy claimed, but certainly of concern.
What has happened since? In July 2021, the American Government Accountability Office released a report in which they just said that the arguments about the impact of 5G on weather forecast were “highly contentious.” Despite the lack of consensus, the official US position became to adopt fairly weak rules on the power leakage. They were then adopted by the International Telecommunication Union which is based in Geneva, Switzerland and which writes the global rules.
But most countries in the European Union so far just haven’t auctioned off the troublesome frequency band. Maybe they’re waiting to see how things pan out in the USA, the guinea pig of countries.
And then there’s six G, the 6th generation of wireless networks. This is already being planned, and it’s supposed to use bands at even higher frequencies, above one hundred GigaHertz and up into the TeraHertz range. Six G is supposed to usher in the metaverse era with augmented and virtual-reality and ultrahigh-definition video so we can finally watch live streams of squirrel feeders from New Zealand on our contact lenses.
According to the tech site LiveWire “6G is just the natural progression towards faster and better wireless connectivity…Ultimately, whether it’s with 6G, 7G, or another “G”, we’ll have such incredibly fast speeds that no progress bars or wait times will be required for any normal amount of data, at least at today’s standards. Everything will just be available...instantly.” And who would not like that?
But of course the 6G range, too, is being used by scientists for measurements that could be compromised. For example, NASA measures ozone around 236 GigaHertz, and carbon monoxide at about 230.5 GigaHertz. So we can pretty much expect to see the entire 5G discussion repeat for 6G.
How can the situation be solved? For 5G, the World Meteorological Organization is trying to negotiate limits with the regulating agencies in different countries. They demand that cell towers operating close to weather satellite frequencies should be limited to transmit at minus 55 dBW (Decibel Watt) for out-of-band emission, so that’s the leakage.
The European Commission has agreed on –42 decibel watts for 5G base stations. The FCC in the US set a limit at –20 decibel watt. This is a logarithmic scale, so this is more than 30 orders of magnitude above the limit the meteorologists ask for.
What do we learn from this? When a new technology is developed, scientists usually get there first. And when everyone else catches up, they’ll interfere with the scientists, often metaphorically but sometimes literally.
This isn’t a new story of course. You only have to worry about noise from railways if you have railways and there are actually trains going on them. But a high-tech society also relies on the accuracy of data, so this is a difficult trade-off. There are no easy ways to decide what to do, but I think everyone would be better off if the worries from scientists were taken more seriously in the design stage and not grumpingly acknowledged half through a global roll-out.
Comments
My guess is that they are serious. Mitsubishi is big in energy production (https://www.mhi.com/products/energy) and focusing on hydrogen makes business sense, become a leader in hydrogen early. I haven't read their Handbook (https://www.powermag.com/content-collection/hydrogen-powergenerationhandbook/), so I don't know where they're going to get that H, probably from natural gas, which is the current usual source (https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/hydrogen/production-of-hydrogen.php). Ultimately, breeders could produce H from water and industrial scale base power.
Mitsubishi huh? Do you think they are serious or might they just be trying to look good -- "see, we're green!" when they really aren't? Everything at that link sounds good, I sure hope they make good progress with their energy transition solutions and hydrogen fuel cells.
Also, coincidently I got an email with this link: https://www.powermag.com/content-collection/mits-hydrogen/?om_id=1127477046 Weird, right?
Yep! Most people, including people who should know better, do not understand the hazard that we are facing, an extinction event to rival that of the Permian era because it didn't have humans causing the rapid declines in wildlife populations that we've seen. I will say is as concisely as possible, we need leaders to promote the fast breeder as the industrial scale grid power source that would enable the hydrogen era. Fuel cells are far better than batteries and can be used in every mode of transportation. Besides, batteries have an incredibly low power density. BTW, I know that extinction isn't the topic of the video, but it underlies everything we do!
It's the same problem with switching to electric cars -- our current power grids cannot keep up with demand and so, without in influx of power generation, and improvements to the electrical infrastructure, a wholesale switch to EVs is out of the question for the near (far?) future. Even if all of the new 5G stations run off of little solar panels and/or wind generators affixed to them, the backup battery situation becomes an issue. All batteries are bad for the environment, it's just that some batteries are slightly less bad than other batteries.
One thing that I have not heard discussed is the far more mundane issue of energy usage. Every cell site has a cluster of base stations, receivers and transmitters, that are always on and they are spaced to provide adequate coverage. So, 5G requires more installations that will always be on to achieve the same level of service of 4G but at 5G frequencies. What appears to be an inherent global increase in power consumption is never discussed. This might sound minor, but remember that Bitcoin mining is discussed as it does use a lot of power and that has proven to be a concern.
Armando Mistral
Dr. Bee would be the FIRST to point out that, without adequate data, the no-squirrels hypothesis for New Zealand is unfalsifiable! Trust the science.
A lot of commenters on YouTube said that there were no squirrels in New Zealand. I say even better -- monitoring squirrel feeders with no squirrels sounds like efficient government bureaucracy to me.
I just want to be able to watch my favourite NZ squirrel feeder feeds in peace!
Armando Mistral
Kiwi squirrel feeder monitoring! Now THAT is the ticket to propel our civilization forward, so those stuffy old climate scientists will just have to calm down. They're a bunch of buzz-kills anyhow.
Sort of. I'll be happy when it reaches Australian shores. That book is far more well-travelled than I am!
Rad Antonov
The mm wave bands are licensed for fixed point to point service, so Verizon has been offering at home wireless internet in some areas. What part of the band they use depends on the licenses they hold. You can search https://wireless2.fcc.gov/UlsApp/UlsSearch/searchLicense.jsp at the county and frequency range level to see who has what licenses in your area. There are also some nationwide maps like this https://specmap.sequence-omega.net/ that can display the licenses by carrier and frequency. Only T-Mobile held enough spectrum to build 5G infrastructure before the C-band auction. Verizon and AT&T had to first buy the bandwidth, so I wouldn’t say there was much infrastructure wasted.
Well, if it's any consolation, the book has finally left Chicago. There are three more entries in tracking, Los Angeles, then Honolulu, then Los Angeles again. Apparently, Sabine's book will see more of the Pacific Ocean than I did when I was in the army stationed in Hawaii. Eventually, the express turtle should find an airplane headed to Sydney, or Melbourne, and then Sydney, and then Melbourne...
Yes, this is called rain attenuation and it can affect the mm-wave signals. For the low-power cells that Sabine mentions, this attenuation wouldn't be a problem if the cell size is 200 meters or smaller, but if the cell size is larger or in tropical (rainy, humid) environments, it can be a significant problem. The attenuation due to rain tends to fluctuate randomly. So, remembering a time when we could get out of a call by blaming the passing under a bridge for a bad signal -- gotta go, now we can blame the rain to hang up on someone, assuming phone companies use the mm-wave bands for their 5G going forward.
We had a party line in rural Minnesota until the late 70's. Ah, the good old days... I like your idea for wireless in rural areas. Service providers generally don't put a lot of effort into rural areas because the population density is too low to be profitable. Even when federal or state governments task the utility companies with upgrading rural services, they have loopholes, like not having to cross rivers and such. My uncle and his neighbors had to hire a private company to run the cable lines out to them because the phone and cable companies wouldn't do it.
I've been doing some extra homework on the topic this weekend. As Rad points out, now that C-band has really opened up for use, and it overlaps with 4G LTE, mobile companies are eager to work at these lower frequencies compared to the mm band. However, I am curious if anyone can fill in my information gap -- the 24-52 GHz range was supposed to be used for gigabit speeds and low latencies; is this still the plan for 5G? Also, I cannot find any numbers about how much of the existing 5G infrastructure uses the high frequency band. With the recent rush to work at C-band, how much of the existing infrastructure was wasted development?
Thanks for the break-down, Rad.
Rad Antonov
@Arne, true, it’s a cost benefit analysis. Will 5G lower the cost of networking sensors enough to make the data acquisition competitive with a satellite? Time will tell.
Rad Antonov
Not compared to prior auctions. $1 / MHz-pop is on average what carries have been willing to pay in the past for lower frequency bands. For the C-band, the FCC auctioned off 280 MHZ nationwide, so x 330 million pops and you’d expect $92.4 billion for all the waves. Initial expectations were for a lower valuation, in the $0.45-60 MHz-pop range because of the more limited propagation compared to say the UHF band that TV broadcasters sold some years ago. Offsetting the propagation however is that a carrier can buy a big chunk of contiguous spectrum, as opposed to 20 MHz here and then another 20 MHz somewhere else on the band. Plus the fact that this band was being repurposed for 5G around the world had some appeal. No doubt there was gamesmanship by carriers that didn’t need to buy as much to bid it up and force their competitors to pay top dollar for what they need. That’s just for the right to broadcast. Now they are spending billions to put the radios on the towers and connect them to the network. Doesn’t look like the market thinks any of it was money well spent.
Greetings Sabine, Y'all. I'm back after a short hiatus; I had to cancel my Patreon subscription because it was yearly and I didn't have that cash, then re-subscribe to a monthly payment when I got enough money. That's going to be a bit easier to manage in the longer term. I'm over the main part of COVID-19 but it's sapped me a fair bit and I have a garden-variety chest infection. FREUDE!
That is a stupid. amount. of. money, is it not? Or are those usual amounts to drop on bandwidth?
Greggery Peccary
Wouldn't precipitation interfere with 5G signaling?
Dr. Arne Babenhauserheide
You don’t need 5G to transmit sensor-data, so there is no benefit to that from 5G.
Very interesting. Thank you for the info on the state on of the actual 5G market
- I am old enough to remember when telephone wires were rationed. You got a 'party line' unless you could prove you needed better access and/or more privacy. - At the risk of sounding like a reactionary, I would say that we (humans) don't really need the extra bandwidth over the air that 5G deems a feature. I personally don't need more video advertisements popping up when I am trying to read something. But getting a good traffic report and/or a detailed map in my automobile is sometimes comforting. And we do get tornadoes where I live - so timely warning would be nice to have. - I say this using a laptop that is connected via my private WiFi to a cable network in an urban environment. I am getting sales literature telling me that I can soon get functionally equivalent bandwidth 'wireless'. I am thinking that 'wireless' would be more valuable in rural environments which often don't get 'cable'. One could use the electric meters to form peer-to-peer networks.
Rad Antonov
One more thought, if I may. The satellite data for weather forecasts is cheap and easy to come by in comparison to alternatives available today. However, couldn’t we also solve the problem and maybe even improve accuracy if we had a dense network of sensors that can collect ground level moisture data and transmit it over a 5G network? IoT is one of the advertised benefits of 5G and there is no reason we couldn’t use it for weather data along with autonomous driving and other applications.
Rad Antonov
I don’t think this is an accurate portrayal of 5G, at least not in 2022. The 5G rollout is happening over the C-band (3.7-4.2 GHz). There was a long and contentious process in the US to free up that band, which had been allocated to fixed satellite service providers. https://www.highspeedinternet.com/resources/what-is-c-band. It even led to a high profile bankruptcy filing. The frequencies were then auctioned off and the FCC collected a cool $81 billion from the sale: https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-announces-winning-bidders-c-band-auction. Verizon alone spent $45 billion. Keep in mind this happened early last year. Now they are spending over $20 billion a year in CAPEX to build the actual network that will use these frequencies. AT&T is in a similar place and T-Mobile is using 2.5GHz spectrum that it acquired from Sprint. A similar process is unfolding around the world and was one reason why the industry was so adamant about getting its hands on the C-band. Since the incumbents were essentially gifted the spectrum to use for FSS, they had very little say in how regulators reallocated it. The beauty though is that your next generation iPhone should work on 5G networks around the world with a single modem. Said differently, the industry is nowhere near deploying 5G services in the vicinity of the 23.8 GHz band. In fact, if you look at the FCC’s auction site, you’ll see that the 24 GHz band didn’t sell that well: https://www.fcc.gov/auction/56. There are some niche services that use mm waves, like fixed wireless internet, but that is not what is commonly meant by 5G in the industry. Those services are also only available in a handful of places. I think wireless backhaul from the tower can also use mm waves, but the preferred solution is to lay fiber to the tower. As you correctly point out, the signal propagation becomes a problem when you move into the GHz and that requires network densification, which costs a lot of money. It becomes even more expensive at the frequencies you are worried about in the video. For better or worse, this is an industry that has no pricing power and after torching hundreds of billions on 5G over C-band, they are a long way away from 23.8 GHz. Yes, it may be something our kids will worry about, but there are more pressing problems we need to solve for them. As always, appreciate the effort that went into the video. P.S. As a reminder to anyone concerned with the health impact of C-band transmissions, keep in mind all modern WiFi routers also operate in a similar range.
